4mo ago

TIL it’s the right of women of all ages to go topless wherever men can in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma, including all their cities.

www.nbcnews.com Topless women win big as Colorado city drops ban

Officials in Fort Collins decided it's not worth the money to fight for its ordinance banning women from appearing topless in public.

281 comments

In Washington state, you can just be nude. As long as you are not doing anything to be "obscene".
- Oregon too, last I knew at least.
  
  This is, in fact, what makes Portland's annual naked bike ride event possible.

Same goes for NY.
I know this because at the college I worked at, a city public safety officer walked up to a young man who was sunbathing on campus thinking it was a woman, and told him to put his shirt back on or be charged with indecency or something. The school was outraged and had a shirtless demonstration march around town.
Did a I mention it was an all girls school?
- I found this map: https://gotopless.org/topless-laws The religion behind this site seems kind of strange.
  
  The religion behind this site seems kind of strange.
  Extraterrestrials Created All Life On Earth
  Let's Build An Embassy To Welcome Them
  
  Oh lol, it's the Raelians.
  
  You guys stumbled upon Raëlism! A cult that originated in France. I have firsthand experience. I met a "Raelian Guide" at a convention and gave a presentation on his religion. They mention the topless stuff, and they're also anti-genital mutilation. But they also wish to reclaim the Swastika as a symbol of peace and love.
  During this presentation, the guide, in talking about reclaiming the Swastika, "it was traditionally a symbol of peace and love, but you all wouldn't learn about that in our Jewish controlled education system. " (Word for word what he said in front of 100~ people)
  They're, uhh, Nazis.
  
  I’ve used this site in the past but never noticed they were out of their damn minds
  
  There is a gallery, for research purposes.
- Eh? I have definitely gone around topless in NY a couple times and wasn't bothered over it. To be fair, it was Pride. To be extra fair, it was almost 100 and everybody was dying. I do remember a couple times on the news where they would have to remind the police in NYS that it is legal on a couple roasting summers. I am definitely not the best at keeping the bits well covered in general. Still far better up here than when I used to live in Texas.
- What's an all-girls school? Like what do they do when a man applies?
  
  Might be starting to dox myself but they have a separate campus that is mixed.

Free the boobies
- It's really just free the nipple, which highlights how ridiculous it is. Even more so when you see images where male nipples have been pasted over female nipples, which would theoretically make those images ok.
  
  I'm getting flashbacks to Tumblr's "female-presenting nipples" censorship rules during the porn ban.

Also legal in Ontario, Canada. A woman was arrested for walking around topless in hot weather. She was finned by police but topless men in the area were not. Ontario courts eventually rulled this was discriminatory but the provincial government did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada so the ruling only applies in Ontario.
- Yeah despite there being a law against discrimination, the cops are obviously going to use their subjective view of things like lewd behaviour to charge topless women where they wouldn't men.
  
  That's literally the law Ontario courts rulled cannot apply to topless women as it is discrimination.
  On July 19, 1991, a sweltering and humid day, Gwen Jacob, a University of Guelph student, was arrested after walking down a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless after removing her shirt when the temperature was 33 °C (91 °F) and was charged with indecency under Section 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
- Take Oklahoma off your list because in Tulsa they will still arrest any woman who does this. Apparently they refuse to follow that law that was passed.
  I know because the city made big fucking stink about it when Tulsa women started to go topless when it was found to be legal. So they passed and ordinance making it illegal within city limits at public spaces so practically everywhere.
  
  Have there been any lawsuits about that? Surely someone has done it so they could then sue the city right?
  
  Yeah, this is effectively illegal in every conservative state.
- It's also legal in British Columbia, Canada and it has been since 2000
- Happy about this. A scant few hours ago I had an over the fence conversation with my neighbor and neither of us were wearing shirts. It's the ideal way to live.

We need to switch from our current American view that all nudity is sexual. If you see a someone naked doesn't automatically make it sexual!
- I mean, sure. But also need to switch from our current US American view that sexuality is bad
- People need to spend a little time at a nudist resort. They'd learn real quick that naked isn't sexual.
  
  Idk, I feel like for some people it is and for some it isn't.
  Like tbh I'd be worried about going to a nudist resort because (despite the trope that "only people you don't want to see go there") if I saw a woman I was attracted to I'd be worried that it would be...uh...evident, and that seems awkward and idk if it's like, allowed to become tumescent even if it is an uncontrollable biological response (never stopped anyone from being mad it happened before, so..)
  Idk, if I saw a woman walking down the street tits akimbo, I'd definitely be more inclined to think "ayy hell yeah" in my head than not, even if it happened daily, I can't just stop being attracted to women, ya know?
  Not that I think she shouldn't, it's her right and I wouldn't complain about seeing them, but I can't control my uncontrollable biological responses of "attraction" nor what happens naturally when "attracted," if you will (though outside of nudist resorts, it's hidable enough because clothes.)
- True! My first thought is usually drugs without further context.
- I agree. There's such shame and disgust around the work of art that is the human body that really needs to be worked on.
  
  Some of y'all should be ashamed.
- Are you male or female? In this case, it matters.
  You see, males (for the most part) ARE attracted to breasts! It's hard wired in our brains! Even gay friends have an obsession with boobs! We men LOVE boobs!!
  If you want to go topless, I say: FUCK YEAH!!! But I feel like the disconnect comes from some people feeling violated if men stare. I'm sorry, but if there are boobs within eyeshot, I'm gonna be looking at them. I might try to hide my gaze (because I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable), but I'm gonna be checking them out. As frequently as possible. Because.....boobs!!
  I'm sorry if this is not the kind of response you were looking for, but.....BOOBS!!
  
  I'm a cis heterosexual male. I love all things about a women's body, but I'm mature enough to not pop a boner just because I see a naked attractive woman. Like is that honestly hard for some healthy adult men?! Like if that woman and I are making sexual advances towards each, game on! Otherwise, what's the big deal?
  You are talking about culture not purely biological. Before clothing men weren't walking around with erections all day. Same thing goes for many other cultures. The obsession with seeing anything naked is because we treat all nudity equally when it's not. I see it as a personal control and character issue that is ingrained in western and Abrahamic religions areas.
  
  I disagree that it's "hardwired in our brains". It certainly has a strong cultural bias. Also, I kinda look at it like a gynologist: If you've seen 20 of them naked, it gets boring and you stop staring, I guess.
  
  On the other hand, I'm gay and breasts just don't do anything for me. Now a guy with a decent set of pecs (but not ridiculously oversized), now we're talking.

Equal protection clause. Any law that imposes itself on women and not men should be unconstitutional.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Should, but laws outlawing toplessness are almost always upheld by the courts, unfortunately.
  "Protecting the public sensibilities from the public display of areas of the body traditionally viewed as erogenous zones — including female, but not male, breasts — is an important government objective."
  
  I chose my words.
- Equal protection*
- Dunno, an intentionalist would argue that by "people" they were only talking about rich white men.
  Obviously they didn't think slaves were people. Why would you think the considered women as people?
  
  It's the 14th amendment. Kind of an important one.

YES
END THE HYPOCRISY
👏 FORCE
👏 MEN
👏 TO
👏 WEAR
👏 SHIRTS!
^^^{apologies, i should have appended an '/s'}^^
- No way am I going swimming like JD Vance.
  
  NGL, swimming with a shirt on is dope, no sunburn, im happy to admit im weird
  
  Sunscreen is expensive
  
  Of course he does
- Heck nah, free the tiddy. I'm transitioning and I wanna be able to show off what I've grown when I'm able haha
  Also just like, can we all stop making everything sexual and let peoples bodies exist. Instead of hiding everything and making ourselves feel ashamed of our bodies
  
  Free them tiddies!
  On a serious note, while I've always believed that boobs aren't inherently sexual, years of bathing people has extended that to all nudity.
  Once you get used to seeing people naked all the time, nudity by itself ceases to be sexual. There has to be intent to the nudity to matter.
  And it isn't like I didn't bathe attractive boobs and vag (that being what I'm attracted to personally, I'm not into guys), I did. Plenty of them, surprisingly, what with accidents and illnesses being involved (you'd think that illness and injury would reduce the attractiveness overall, what with part of attractiveness being signs of health). Even in nursing homes, there were enough attractive bodies that most people would be surprised.
  But it wasn't sexual at all. Well, not for me anyway, some of the patients had moments.
  It's just skin.
  The flip side of that is that after a while, I just got annoyed at people doing the usual "old people gross" bullshit. No, they aren't, they're just old. Age, disability, none of it makes someone's body unpleasant inherently. Tbh, there's beauty in all of it after I got past the initial dissonance with nudity in general. That "I'm not supposed to be seeing this" that we get drilled into us.
  
  If a trans person lives somewhere they legally cannot change their gender, does that mean they can legally go topless in a state where its illegal to bare breasts, because the State still recognizes them as men?
- I mean.....I have self body issues. I wear a hoodie in the summer when it's nearly 100F.
  But I was thinking we go the other way on this. Ladies, just because I'M ashamed of my body, and cover up, doesn't mean YOU need to! Let the girls get some air!

Legal in more states now. https://gotopless.org/topless-laws
- See how Indiana is red there? I had friends in college in Indiana back in the 90s who stripped to help pay for their schooling and they had to put round band-aids over their nipples. They could bare their breasts, inside a building, but not their nipples.
  
  You mean in a strip club or in public?
  
  Blue laws are hell to work around as a performer. Thankfully NYC is pretty lax.
  That said, the silver lining is that nipple pasties are an absolute central part of burlesque now and you can find everything from cheap disposables to custom made works of art
- Washington surprises me. AFAIK full nudity is legal in Seattle.
- did not expect Nevada to ban tatas
- Sadly, site doesnt load

Hooray!
- Username checks out.
- …for Boobies!

I was told (but didnt confirm this) that in Barcelona you can go full nude almost everywhere and there is a naked guy on a bike that is pretty famous there (didnt get to see him fortunately?)

Why is it not legal everywhere that it is for men? This is ass backwards lol. I just always assumed it was more of a women saying "not gonna do that cause pervs" type thing and how overly sexualized boobs are
- It's a straw man / non issue.
  In Germany are public places marked as FKK (Freikörper Kultur = Full Nudity in Public), which are literally normal areas without any special consideration in terms of visibility. Best case: There is a sign notifying the squeamish that there could be Nudity... normal Case: No one gives a fuck.
  Heck, the best public baths are the sauna/thermal baths with are mandatory nude, age restriction 16+....
  It has no sexual meaning .. you go there, everyone is naked after 10 seconds of slight awkwardness, you forget about it and enjoy the freedom of "no cold and wet swimwear" on the body.
  It's great!
  I doubt Americans are different in that perspective.
  Edit: Perverts won't have fun there. The people are average and mostly old and the behavior is casual. It's like seeing your mom or dad naked. The few People who could get off on this have issues.
  
  I doubt Americans are different in that perspective
  Lmao
  That's all I came to say
- Well you're kinda right. I've lived in BC and the Yukon where it's fully legal for women to go topless and I know quite a few who have, for shorter events like naked bike ride etc. But most of them intelligently choose not to at public beaches and whatnot because of the ick factor.
  I know one lady who did choose to go topless on a hot summer day in a fairly major downtown center and was accosted by cops whom she had to argue with (gladly, and loudly) for over an hour to explain to them that she was breaking no laws. They were trying to pressure her to re-robe because they were getting complaints, but again it's true that she was breaking no laws at all. They couldn't in the end do anything about it, and rightly so.
- Honestly, boobs are not that exciting.
  Have you ever been to a topless beach? The novelty wears out after about 10 seconds and then it becomes a boring norm.
  
  I think boobs are super exciting. I love boobs.
  If they're connected to the body of the girl I'm being intimate with that is.
  Walked into Starbucks today to grab a food order and saw an attractive woman breastfeeding her child today, though, and not one sexual thought entered my mind.
  Thats the part most men struggle with.
  And some women, too, though not for the same reasons. "Oh that's not something thAt should be done in public!" Okay so I guess for the same reasons, just different thought processes to arrive there.

AFAIK anyone can go fully nude in most public spaces in Germany. It's actually kind of weirder to not allow it and carve out arbitrary exceptions if you think about it.
- I think its decriminalized, not legal. That way the cops can just arrest people they want to discriminate against and let the white Christians violate the laws.

Should be nationwide
- Should be worldwide

I support this for all the reasons. All the right ones. And all the wrong ones.
- I love equality and boobs
- I want to build a society where women can walk around wearing whatever they want, even nothing, because they feel safe from harassment for all the reasons you listed.

In America, here in France is a right nationwide ✊
- I assume it's because France is a sane country.

It's legal where I live. Nobody does it
- Where is that? I think women often don't walk around topless because men sexualize them or take photos, etc.
  
  As a woman who’s done it: it’s mostly just awkward. I don’t go topless unless it’s an occasion warranting it or it’s way too damn hot to wear a shirt. The men don’t help for certain, but there’s just also the element of being the only shirtless woman around
  
  Could be anywhere, it's legal in a lot of the US but nobody partakes because it draws unwanted attention.
  
  Yeah, it's kinda built in

amendment the constitution. the right to bare tiddies
- First Amendment absolutist
  
  everything is speech including my nuts

New York too. Or is it just the city?
- San Francisco as well
  
  IIRC it's completely legal to walk around fully nude in San Francisco.
  Edit: I was at work so I couldn't look this up to post it but yeah, there's a website dedicated to it.
  http://www.nudeinsf.com/
- Yup legal in NY.
- But we do have cabaret laws in NYC that say you can’t dance in an establishment without a license for dancing which is super dum dum.
  
  Reminds me of something...I think it was Stormy Daniels or some similar figure talking about her first time working in a strip club, and a local law said that nude performers had to be on a "stage," but there were no technical specifications for said "stage" so they had small raised platforms not dissimilar to a cargo pallet for the girls to dance on near each table.

Legal in Ohio as well for women to go topless. I'm not sure if there are any age restrictions or anything.
- Idk of age restrictions but it’s not an explicit right here, so most municipalities have laws against it. Columbus doesn’t though so you can free the tits there
- Yeah, but......you have to see women from......Ohio.......

Tits are not sex organs.
- Anything can be a sex organ if you're kinky enough.

But since its not a protected class I assume businesses can turn them away
- Most businesses will turn away anyone shirtless, especially where health code violations come into play.
  
  Yeah I’ve gone topless in cities where it’s legal before and you just need to bring a shirt if you plan on eating
  
  Right. "No shoes. No shirt. No service."
  
  Which is fair. There's a difference between walking down the street topless and being inside a resteraunt.
  
  Why is it not healthy for me to eat without a shirt again??
- If they allow it for men they might have to allow it for everybody.
- Sex/gender is a protected class.
  
  Shirted/Shirtless isn't

So this body freedom is ok.
- All bodily freedoms, including that pesky bodily autonomy thing that some people seem to struggle to understand, should be freedoms granted by the constitution (or similar document in other countries).
  We passed laws that have made things more equal here in Canada. The US should do the same.
  I keep thinking about America's obsession with freedom, and from what I see, y'all aren't very free.

None of which have beaches like the one in the photo.

In some German cities public pools it's allowed, too. Source in German: https://www.hessenschau.de/panorama/frankfurt-erlaubt-oben-ohne-schwimmen--v4,frankfurt-schwimmbaeder-100.html

I have an "umm what about" regarding "of all ages."
Say a 15 year old girl decides to walk topless down main street. Is everyone on that street who has a security camera running going to be convicted of making child porn?
I don't trust the legislature to have been competent enough to edit the rest of the code to reflect that change nor do I trust the thin blue line punisher sticker crowd to pass up something they can portray as a crime.
- To answer your question seriously, no. Having pictures or videos of a 15 year olds breast is not by default porn, it's only porn once it's in a sexual context.
  
  It's porn if the state wants to harass you for something.
  
  So.. if i would look at it ... O nice i know that store she walks by = pic is safe O nice tits i gonna jerk off to it = pic is porn ?
  Than one pic can be porn for one and safe for an other. I must be missing something.
  
  Does "in a sexual context" have a falsifiable definition? I mean, here's an article from the American Bar Association journal about a man who was arrested and deported for "child sexual abuse" for having photos printed of himself kissing his infant daughter after a bath.
  The accuser was the photo lab tech. After the man was arrested and deported, his wife was arrested, their child was removed from them, then the investigation took the whole roll of film into consideration and found there was no child abuse, this was photographic evidence of loving parents caring for their child. "Sexual context" indeed.
  I envision a future where a business owner puts up security cameras around his shop, those security cameras send their video to "The Cloud," an underage girl walks by topless in view of those video cameras, as is her legal right to do so, a closed-source unauditable CSAM detection algorithm running on "The Cloud" flags the video as CSAM, and the business owner gets arrested, his business and/or home destroyed or even killed before an investigation determines no wrongdoing. Because we put the time for reasonableness after the bodies have cooled. We check to see if it's a false positive after the "arrest" has been made. THAT's the ultimate problem I have here.
- You are sexualizing nudity. This is the bulk of the problem.
  
  am I the one doing that? And 2. Is it the bulk of the problem?
  Me personally, I have no particular need for legislated prudishness. I don't see much of a difference between the Taliban requiring women to wear a headscarf than whatever red state requiring women to wear a top. A lot of that nonsense is done to enforce a particular religion, and I personally want all religions to be thrown in the toilet with all the other worthless assgarbage.
  There was a point in time when things such as bikinis and miniskirts were seen as scandalously immodest. The people who saw them that way are mostly dead now and we can move on, which is what will ultimately happen here. Some women will start going topless to the beach, the newspapers will write some stories about it, there'll be some arrests, there will be some court cases, there will be some laws passed, and then it'll settle in as just a thing people do sometimes.
  The problem I have is that I think people with cameras are going to be punished for incidentally filming topless girls in ways they're not for incidentally filming topless boys. Shall I illustrate with an example?
  Consider this video of a walking tour of Panama City Beach, Florida. . There are a lot of videos like this, tours of various places around the world, they're filmed in public places, often from streets, sidewalks etc. There's a lengthy segment where the cameraperson walks down the beach and records several boys and men without shirts on. The video is on Youtube, uncensored and monetized. No one anywhere has a problem with this because we categorically do not consider male barechestedness to be nudity.
  The argument here is women and girls should be allowed to be barechested anywhere men and boys are. Okay, so the instant we make that change, we also need to change the rules that say it's not okay to see, photograph, record or broadcast barechested women and girls. It needs to be equally okay to upload pictures of barechested women and girls to Youtube without censor bars or blurs. Because then it becomes "when he does it it's not nudity, when she does it, it's not considered nudity but it is still in fact nudity." You don't get to require people in public to avert their gaze.
  
  No (s)he's not, this is VERY pragmatic. US police officers love pushing their authority up your rear end given the chance, and if you even accidentally recorded a topless minor, you could be in for.some fun.
- There is no such thing as child porn as porn requires consent, it's called child sexual exploitation materials.
  
  The term "child" is ageist, the preferred term is temporally different.

Same in Ontario.

New York, too! And a few other states, I think.

grrr muc opreson

I'm like tonr between this like one side thinks who cares if men can do it women should have the right, but you get angry religious nutjobs. On the other side you get weirdos who will just be even bigger creeps.

I feel like they might have been wise to wait for a less fucked up SCOTUS before taking this before it.
It's not a bad idea, as it's something that needs doing but it's unlikely to be passed as a federal law, and they're kind of right that it is unconstitutional.
But this is bad timing.
Edit: It might not be clear that I was referring to the three women who are avoiding to the article taking freedom of toplessness to the supreme court, where I think they're unlikely to get support with the court's current constellation. Losing the case now might make it harder to get a similar case before a more favourable constellation of the SCOTUS in the future, so it's not very strategic in that sense.
Then it was rightfully pointed out that the article was old, and they had already lost the case before the SCOTUS (in it's current constellation). So indeed bad timing.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Or maybe there's an unpopular opinion in there. Dunno. Cheers.
- The article is 5 years old.
  
  Shoot - I just read the article and saw the related links, but it didn't occur to me that it's completely out of date.
  Did they ever make it to the SCOTUS? I guess not?
- They didn't lose their case in front of SCOTUS. SCOTUS just decided not to hear the case so the lower court's ruling stood in that lower jurisdiction.

281 comments

Extraterrestrials Created All Life On Earth

Let's Build An Embassy To Welcome Them